Dave, Fish, Brock and their kind are very intelligent people, its no use trying to shame them into compliance.

The only thing i cant understand is this... based on what i've read, which is to say A LOT... freemasons were literally built and established on the exploration of the deepest mysteries the world has known, going waaay back to the egyptian guilds. Maybe i'm waaay outside of my bounds, maybe everything i've read on the internet and elsewhere is full of crap who knows... i'm just a normal guy.

Am I wrong in stating that Masons must admit to the existence of a supreme architect before joining? Please correct me if i've read some BS somewhere, thats entirely possible, hell, i've never been to a meeting.

If the Masons, as legend holds to be true, actually not just legends but a fact of masonic heredity are true, they are dedicated to to unraveling the ancient mysteries and wisdom of the ancients, born of the ancient temples of egypt... then why do so many modern Masons laugh off any single mention of religion? Its strange, no matter how you cut it. If i'm wrong then silence me with abusive scorn, but arent all adepts supposed to admit/confess to some form of Supreme Architect before they're even admitted? If so, then why heap scorn upon others?

Is it all just a good ol boys club that helps one advance through society, or is it something more, something that still clings to its ancient, free and accepted roots.

When Masons laugh off matters of spiritual importance, i have to wonder why, given the fact tha their entire culture and science is based upon mystery... or so i've read.

Am I wrong in stating that Masons must admit to the existence of a supreme architect before joining? Please correct me if i've read some BS somewhere, thats entirely possible, hell, i've never been to a meeting.

nope

you are not wrong

you also dont see masons going around trying to tell you what to believe or that you are stupid for not believing the same thing they do

you also dont see masons going around trying to tell you what to believe or that you are stupid for not believing the same thing they do

Then why are the only two admitted Masons here among the very first to have a laugh at other people who believe there is something much more to this life?

Brock often stays silent on many matters, Fish giggles at any and everything even quasi-mystical, as if most people cannot even comprehend... is it just a defense mechanism, or is the average joe just that stupid?

Then why are the only two admitted Masons here among the very first to have a laugh at other people who believe there is something much more to this life?

Brock often stays silent on many matters, Fish giggles at any and everything even quasi-mystical, as if most people cannot even comprehend... is it just a defense mechanism, or is the average joe just that stupid?

I really can't answer for them, but I do know from my own experience first hand you are supposed to believe in a higher power, and it is at the core of the mason's beliefs

Then why are the only two admitted Masons here among the very first to have a laugh at other people who believe there is something much more to this life?

Brock often stays silent on many matters, Fish giggles at any and everything even quasi-mystical, as if most people cannot even comprehend... is it just a defense mechanism, or is the average joe just that stupid?

The average joe is just that stupid...

Seriously though, regarding the requirement you allude to, the belief in a supreme being is not limited at all to what you're obviously perceiving it to be. Declaration of a supreme being can vary greatly, and is certainly not limited to the Christian version of God. The key is belief in "A supreme being", not the "Christian supreme being". Mostly, you'll find that belief in any supreme being is sufficient and which one is not of much concern at all. It's lumped into the general term of "The Great Architect of the Universe". Which could mean an unlimited number of different things or even deities. There are certainly numerous interpretations of this.

Personally, I adhere to something similar to pantheism. As described by Paul Harrison:

Quote:

When we say that the cosmos is divine, we mean it with just as much conviction and emotion as believers say that their god is God. But we are not making a metaphysical statement that is beyond proof or disproof. We are making an ethical statement that means no more, and no less, than this: We should relate to the universe in the same way as believers in God relate to God. That is, with humility, awe, reverence, celebration and the search for deeper understanding.

As Albert Einstein described it..

Quote:

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

“A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.”

“The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.”

“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”

And one of my favorites: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

And that is still completely compliant with Masonic views of requiring a supreme being. It would be just as equally compliant if someone described what the Christian God means to them, or what the Buddhist God means to them, or what the Muslim God means to them. Belief in structure and methodology is what's important, not the specific geographical religious source of it. This is simply my description.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Then why are the only two admitted Masons here among the very first to have a laugh at other people who believe there is something much more to this life?

Brock often stays silent on many matters, Fish giggles at any and everything even quasi-mystical, as if most people cannot even comprehend... is it just a defense mechanism, or is the average joe just that stupid?

Do the Masons commonly hold press conferences to make public their positions?...

__________________

Quote:

"He had no teeth, and he was slobbering all over himself. I'm thinking, 'You can have your money back, just get me out of here. Let me go be an accountant." I can't tell you how badly I wanted out of there."Denver rookie QB John Elway, on Jack Lambert, after Lambert and the Steelers knocked Elway out of his first game as a pro (1983).